Military weapon systems and command-and-control infrastructure augmented by artificial intelligence (AI) have seen rapid development and deployment in recent years. However, the sociotechnical impacts of AI on combat systems, military decision-making, and the norms of warfare have been understudied. We focus on a specific subset of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that use AI for targeting or battlefield decisions. We refer to this subset as AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (AI-LAWS) and argue that they introduce novel risks--including unanticipated escalation, poor reliability in unfamiliar environments, and erosion of human oversight--all of which threaten both military effectiveness and the openness of AI research. These risks cannot be addressed by high-level policy alone; effective regulation must be grounded in the technical behavior of AI models. We argue that AI researchers must be involved throughout the regulatory lifecycle. Thus, we propose a clear, behavior-based definition of AILAWS--systems that introduce unique risks through their use of modern AI--as a foundation for technically grounded regulation, given that existing frameworks do not distinguish them from conventional LAWS. Using this definition, we propose several technically-informed policy directions and invite greater participation from the AI research community in military AI policy discussions.

Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection is essential for ensuring the reliability and safety of machine learning systems. In recent years, it has received increasing attention, particularly through post-hoc detection and training-based methods. In this paper, we focus on post-hoc OOD detection, which enables identifying OOD samples without altering the model's training procedure or objective. Our primary goal is to investigate the relationship between model capacity and its OOD detection performance. Specifically, we aim to answer the following question: Does the Double Descent phenomenon manifest in post-hoc OOD detection?

Quantum many-body problems are central to various scientific disciplines, yet their ground-state properties are intrinsically challenging to estimate.

Heterogeneity poses a fundamental challenge for many real-world large-scale decision-making problems but remains largely understudied. In this paper, we study the fully heterogeneous setting of a prominent class of such problems, known as weakly-coupled Markov decision processes (WCMDPs). Each WCMDP consists of N arms (or subproblems), which have distinct model parameters in the fully heterogeneous setting, leading to the curse of dimensionality when N is large. We show that, under mild assumptions, an efficiently computable policy achieves an O(1/ N) optimality gap in the long-run average reward per arm for fully heterogeneous WCMDPs as N becomes large. This is the first asymptotic optimality result for fully heterogeneous average-reward WCMDPs. Our main technical innovation is the construction of projection-based Lyapunov functions that certify the convergence of rewards and costs to an optimal region, even under full heterogeneity.1

The ability to continually learn, retain and deploy skills to accomplish goals is a key feature of intelligent and efficient behavior. However, the neural mechanisms facilitating the continual learning and flexible (re-)composition of skills remain elusive. Here, we study continual learning and the compositional reuse of learned computations in recurrent neural network (RNN) models using a novel two-system approach: one system that infers what computation to perform, and one that implements how to perform it. We focus on a set of compositional cognitive tasks commonly studied in neuroscience. To construct the what system, we first show that a large family of tasks can be systematically described by a probabilistic generative model, where compositionality stems from a shared underlying vocabulary of discrete task epochs. We develop an unsupervised online learning approach that can learn this model on a single-trial basis, building its vocabulary incrementally as it is exposed to new tasks, and inferring the latent epoch structure as a timevarying computational context within a trial. We implement the how system as an RNN whose low-rank components are composed according to the context inferred by the what system. Contextual inference facilitates the creation, learning, and reuse of low-rank RNN components as new tasks are introduced sequentially, enabling continual learning without catastrophic forgetting. Using an example task set, we demonstrate the efficacy and competitive performance of this two-system learning framework, its potential for forward and backward transfer, as well as fast compositional generalization to unseen tasks.

We introduce MLRC-BENCH, a benchmark designed to quantify how effectively language agents can tackle challenging Machine Learning (ML) Research Competitions, with a focus on open research problems that demand novel methodologies. Unlike prior work, e.g., AIScientist [40], which evaluates the end-to-end agentic pipeline by using LLM-as-a-judge, MLRC-BENCH measures the key steps of proposing and implementing novel research methods and evaluates them with rigorous protocol and objective metrics. Our curated suite of 7 competition tasks reveals significant challenges for LLM agents. Even the best-performing tested agent (gemini-exp-1206 under MLAB [22]) closes only 9.3% of the gap between baseline and top human participant scores. Furthermore, our analysis reveals a misalignment between the LLM-judged innovation and their actual performance on cutting-edge ML research problems. MLRC-BENCH is a dynamic benchmark, which is designed to continually grow with new ML competitions to encourage rigorous and objective evaluations of AI's research capabilities. Our leaderboard and code are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/launch/MLRC_Bench.

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems remains a core challenge of natural language processing (NLP), further complicated by the rise of large language models (LLMs) that aim to be general-purpose. Recently, large language models as judges (LLJs) have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional metrics, but their validity remains underexplored. This position paper argues that the current enthusiasm around LLJs may be premature, as their adoption has outpaced rigorous scrutiny of their reliability and validity as evaluators. Drawing on measurement theory from the social sciences, we identify and critically assess four core assumptions underlying the use of LLJs: their ability to act as proxies for human judgment, their capabilities as evaluators, their scalability, and their cost-effectiveness. We examine how each of these assumptions may be challenged by the inherent limitations of LLMs, LLJs, or current practices in NLG evaluation. To ground our analysis, we explore three applications of LLJs: text summarization, data annotation, and safety alignment. Finally, we highlight the need for more responsible evaluation practices in LLJs evaluation, to ensure that their growing role in the field supports, rather than undermines, progress in NLG.

LLM-based agents have been widely applied as personal assistants, capable of memorizing information from user messages and responding to personal queries. However, there still lacks an objective and automatic evaluation on their memory capability, largely due to the challenges in constructing reliable questions and answers (QAs) according to user messages. In this paper, we propose MemSim, a Bayesian simulator designed to automatically construct reliable QAs from generated user messages, simultaneously keeping their diversity and scalability. Specifically, we introduce the Bayesian Relation Network (BRNet) and a causal generation mechanism to mitigate the impact of LLM hallucinations on factual information, facilitating the automatic creation of an evaluation dataset. Based on MemSim, we generate a dataset in the daily-life scenario, named MemDaily, and conduct extensive experiments to assess the effectiveness of our approach. We also provide a benchmark for evaluating different memory mechanisms in LLM-based agents with the MemDaily dataset.

Algorithm configuration, which involves selecting algorithm parameters based on sampled problem instances, is a crucial step in applying modern algorithms such as SAT solvers. Although prior work has attempted to understand the theoretical foundations of algorithm configuration, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of why practical algorithm configurators exhibit strong generalization performances in real-world scenarios. In this paper, through the lens of machine learning theory, we provide an algorithm-dependent generalization bound for the widely used model-based algorithm configurators under mild assumptions. Our approach is based on the algorithmic stability framework for generalization bounds. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first generalization bound that applies to a model closely approximating practical model-based algorithm configurators.

Ensuring fairness in machine learning models is a critical challenge. Existing debiasing methods often compromise performance, rely on static correction strategies, and struggle with data sparsity, particularly within minority groups. Furthermore, their utilization of sensitive attributes is often suboptimal, either depending excessively on complete attribute labeling or disregarding these attributes entirely. To overcome these limitations, we propose FairNet, a novel framework for dynamic, instance-level fairness correction. FairNet integrates a bias detector with conditional low-rank adaptation (LoRA), which enables selective activation of the fairness correction mechanism exclusively for instances identified as biased, and thereby preserve performance on unbiased instances. A key contribution is a new contrastive loss function for training the LoRA module, specifically designed to minimize intra-class representation disparities across different sensitive groups and effectively address underfitting in minority groups. The FairNet framework can flexibly handle scenarios with complete, partial, or entirely absent sensitive attribute labels. Theoretical analysis confirms that, under moderate TPR/FPR for the bias detector, FairNet can enhance the performance of the worst group without diminishing overall model performance, and potentially yield slight performance improvements.